rich guy meeting
State of the Ruling Class Laurie Garrett [Laurie Garrett of Newsday sent this email to a bunch of her friends. It got around. Then it got loose. Reportedly she is quite steamed about it, as well she might be. It's been circulated to thousands already. Laurie Garrett is the only writer ever to have been awarded all three of the Big Ps of journalism: The Peabody, The Polk (twice), and The Pulitzer. Garrett has been honored with two doctorates in humane letters honoris causa, from Wesleyan Illinois University and the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. She is the author of The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance and Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health. She is a medical and science writer for Newsday in New York City.] --- Hi Guys. OK, hard to believe, but true. Yours truly has been hobnobbing with the ruling class. I spent a week in Davos, Switzerland at the World Economic Forum. I was awarded a special pass which allowed me full access to not only the entire official meeting, but also private dinners with the likes the head of the Saudi Secret Police, presidents of various and sundry countries, your Fortune 500 CEOS and the leaders of the most important NGOs in the world. This was not typical press access. It was full-on, unfettered, class A hobnobbing. Davos, I discovered, is a breathtakingly beautiful spot, unlike anything I'd ever experienced. Nestled high in the Swiss Alps, it's a three hours train ride from Zurich that finds you climbing steadily through snow-laden mountains that bring to mind Heidi and Audrey Hepburn (as in the opening scenes of Charade). The EXTREMELY powerful arrive by helicopter. The moderately powerful take the first class train. The NGOs and we mere mortals reach heaven via coach train or a conference bus. Once in Europe's bit of heaven conferees are scattered in hotels that range from BB to ultra luxury 5-stars, all of which are located along one of only three streets that bisect the idyllic village of some 13,000 permanent residents. Local Davos folks are fanatic about skiing, and the slopes are literally a 5-15 minute bus ride away, depending on which astounding downhill you care to try. I don't know how, so rather than come home in a full body cast I merely watched. This sweet little chalet village was during the WEF packed with about 3000 delegates and press, some 1000 Swiss police, another 400 Swiss soldiers, numerous tanks and armored personnel carriers, gigantic rolls of coiled barbed wire that gracefully cascaded down snow- covered hillsides, missile launchers and assorted other tools of the national security trade. The security precautions did not, of course, stop there. Every single person who planned to enter the conference site had special electronic badges which, upon being swiped across a reading pad, produced a computer screen filled color portrait of the attendee, along with his/her vital statistics. These were swiped and scrutinized by soldiers and police every few minutes -- any time one passed through a door, basically. The whole system was connected to handheld wireless communication devices made by HP, which were issued to all VIPs. I got one. Very cool, except when they crashed. Which, of course, they did frequently. These devices supplied every imagineable piece of information one could want about the conference, your fellow delegates, Davos, the world news, etc. And they were emailing devices --- all emails being monitored, of course, by Swiss cops. Antiglobalization folks didn't stand a chance. Nor did Al Qaeda. After all, if someone managed to take out Davos during WEF week the world would basically lose a fair chunk of its ruling and governing class POOF, just like that. So security was the name of the game. Metal detectors, X-ray machines, shivering soldiers standing in blizzards, etc. Overall, here is what I learned about the state of our world: - I was in a dinner with heads of Saudi and German FBI, plus the foreign minister of Afghanistan. They all said that at its peak Al Qaeda had 70,000 members. Only 10% of them were trained in terrorism -- the rest were military recruits. Of that 7000 [terrorists], they say all but about 200 are dead or in jail. - But Al Qaeda, they say, is like a brand which has been heavily franchised. And nobody knows how many unofficial franchises have been spawned since 9/11. - The global economy is in very very very very bad shape. Last year when WEF met here in New York all I heard was, Yeah, it's bad, but recovery is right around the corner. This year recovery was a word never uttered. Fear was palpable -- fear of enormous fiscal hysteria. The watchwords were deflation, long term stagnation and collapse of the dollar. All of this is without war. - If the U.S. unilaterally goes to war, and it is anything short of a quick surgical strike (lasting less than 30 days), the economists were all
Castro speaks up
Voice of the dark corners By Fidel Castro The Guardian (UK) March 6, 2003 These are hard times we are living in. In recent months, we have more than once heard chilling words and statements. In his speech to West Point graduating cadets on June 1 2002, the United States president declared: Our security will require transforming the military you will lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. That same day, he proclaimed the doctrine of the pre- emptive strike, something no one had ever done in the political history of the world. A few months later, referring to the unnecessary and almost certain military action against Iraq, he said: And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States army. That statement was not made by the government of a small and weak nation, but by the leader of the richest and mightiest military power that has ever existed, which possesses thousands of nuclear weapons, enough to obliterate the world's population several times over - and other terrifying conventional military systems and weapons of mass destruction. That is what we are: dark corners of the world. That is the perception some have of the third world nations. Never before had anyone offered a better definition; no one had shown such contempt. The former colonies of powers that divided the world among them and plundered it for centuries today make up the group of underdeveloped countries. There is nothing like full independence, fair treatment on an equal footing or national security for any of us; none is a permanent member of the UN security council with a veto right; none has any possibility of being involved in the decisions of the international financial institutions; none can keep its best talents; none can protect itself from capital flight or the destruction of nature and the environment caused by the squandering, selfish and insatiable consumerism of the economically developed countries. After the last global carnage in the 1940s, we were promised a world of peace, a reduction of the gap between the rich and poor and the assistance of the highly developed to the less developed countries. It was all a huge lie. We had imposed on us an unsustainable and unbearable world order. The world is being driven into a dead end. Within hardly 150 years, the oil and gas it took the planet 300 million years to accumulate will have been depleted. In just 100 years, the world population has grown from 1.5 billion to over 6 billion people, who will have to depend on energy sources that are still to be researched and developed. Poverty continues to grow while old and new diseases threaten whole nations with annihilation. The world's soil is being eroded and losing its fertility; the climate is changing; the air that we breathe, drinking water and the seas are increasingly contaminated. Authority is being wrenched away from the United Nations, its established procedures are being obstructed and the organisation itself destroyed; development assistance is being reduced; there are continuous demands on the third world countries to pay a $2.5 trillion debt that cannot be paid under the present circumstances, while $1 trillion dollars are spent in ever more sophisticated and deadly weapons. Why and for what? A similar amount is spent on commercial advertising, sowing consumerist longings that cannot be satisfied in the minds of billions of people. Why and for what? For the first time the human species is running a real risk of extinction due to the insane behaviour of the very same human beings, who are thus becoming the victims of this civilisation. However, no one will fight for us, that is, for the overwhelming majority, only we will do it. Only we can save humanity ourselves with the support of millions of manual and intellectual workers from the developed nations who are conscious of the catastrophes befalling their peoples. Only we can do it by sowing ideas, building awareness and mobilising global and North American public opinion. No one needs to be told this. You know it very well. Our most sacred duty is to fight, and fight we will. © Fidel Castro Ruiz 2003 Fidel Castro is president of the Republic of Cuba. This is an edited version of a speech delivered to the Non Aligned Movement summit in Kuala Lumpur Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,908218,00.html -- --- Drop Bush, Not Bombs! --- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell END OF THE TRAIL SALOON Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT) http://www.kvmr.org --- I uke, therefore
Iraqi political economy
This week the interventionist trends have carried a number of stories of links between Saddam and Stalin. It is not clear whose reputation is supposed to be more insulted by this association. The links seem to rest on a few positive remarks by Saddam about Stalin, plus his policy of internal repression and use of terror. These reports are not seriously analytical of the state of Iraqi society as it has evolved to the present, but rest on highlighting the individual images of the two men. They forget that colonial and newly neo-colonial people have a history of being more tolerant of the Soviet Union, and Hitlers Germany, domestically because of their significance as potential allies against colonialism and imperialism. They also forget that even a powerful dictator is actually located in a complex economic, political and ideological formation. I am posing this question, not to invite the sort of sterile conflict that Michael I am sure would not allow, but to ask what do we know of the actual current political economy of Iraq? Even allowing for continued repression of bourgeois democratic rights, it is not credible that the regime is held together purely by terror, and without any ideology that has at least some acceptance among the population. How far does the socialism of the Iraqi Bath party, claim to be relevant and embraced by sections of the population? Is this a national democratic regime? What proportion of property is socially owned? How to capitalists relate to the bureaucracy? How much public support and consultation is elicited to achieve consensus about developments? How are classes and strata organised? How do they organise themselves? How do the religious organisations sit beside the secular organisation? Presumably most of the published literature is biassed against the regime. What I am looking for are serious references for analyses that are searching and dialectical. Why for example do we not get analyses of the sort that must be available in Iraqi Kurdistan which appears to have a relatively developed civil society, and would include a lot of people seriously interested in following what is happening in Iraq under Saddam? Particularly if there is skirmishing in the coming weeks about the terms under which Saddam goes into exile, we need to have a dialectical understanding of Iraqi society to be clear which imperialist interventions would most crush any positive socialistic aspects. Chris Burford London
Re: the political ecology of megaprojects
- Original Message - From: Ian Murray Subject: [PEN-L:35339] the political ecology of megaprojects Megaprojects and Risk An Anatomy of Ambition Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, Werner Rothengatter Hey I can do free chapters too, on the worst megaprojects in Africa: Lesotho Highlands Water Project and the Coega port/IDZ/megasmelter. For abuse of water and energy, these really can't be beat... (available by writing me offlist at [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Cheers, Patrick *** Book Announcement: http://www.unpress.co.za http://www.merlinbooks.co.uk August 2002 UNSUSTAINABLE SOUTH AFRICA: Environment, Development and Social Protest by Patrick Bond with George Dor, Michael Dorsey, Maj Fiil-Flynn, Stephen Greenberg, Thulani Guliwe, David Hallowes, Becky Himlin, Stephen Hosking, Greg Ruiters and Robyn Stein 'The nations of the world elected to come to our country', explained president Thabo Mbeki of the UN's choice of Johannesburg as host city for the August-September 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, 'because they are convinced that we have something of value to contribute to the building of a new and more equitable world order that must surely emerge'. This book offers a critical reflection on the post-apartheid 'sustainable development' experience. What is of greatest value from South Africa is the warning not to pursue neoliberal, market-oriented strategies--as did Pretoria and most SA municipalities since democracy dawned in 1994. Working with local activists, Bond and his colleagues have researched and campaigned on behalf of social and environmental justice for years: offering alternatives to a minerals smelter in the Nelson Mandela Metropole, opposing Lesotho mega-dams, helping township residents end disconnections of electricity and water, and advocating for free lifeline services. Of lasting importance, they insist, are the rising grassroots protest movements against globalisation, privatisation, unemployment, poverty, denial of healthcare, decaying social services, and ecological degradation. Both globally and locally, the human condition and the environment have worsened not improved, for reasons explained here with remarkably detailed evidence and compelling vignettes, but with an eye to hopeful alternatives on the horizon. *** Contents: Preface - Introduction: 'A World in One Country' PART ONE : AN UNSUSTAINABLE LEGACY - Chapter One - The Environment of Apartheid-Capitalism: Discourses and Issues PART TWO : UNSUSTAINABLE PROJECTS - Chapter Two - The Development of Underdevelopment in Nelson Mandela Metropole: Coega's Economic, Social and Environmental Subsidies - Chapter Three - Lesotho's Water, Johannesburg's Thirst: Communities, Consumers and Mega-Dams PART THREE : UNSUSTAINABLE POLICIES - Chapter Four - Eco-Social Injustice for Working-Class Communities: The Making and Unmaking of Neoliberal Infrastructure Policy - Chapter Five - Droughts and Floods: Water Prices and Values in the Time of Cholera - Chapter Six - Power to the Powerful: Energy, Electricity, Equity and Environment - PART FOUR: ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL PROTEST - Chapter Seven - Conclusion: Environmentalism, the WSSD and Uneven Political Development - References - Index Patrick Bond is Professor at the University of the Witwatersrand Graduate School of Public and Development Management. His co-authors are academics and researchers. KEYWORDS: POLITICS, NEO-LIBERALISM, ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, WATER, SOUTH AFRICA 9x 6 inches 480pp, Maps, Figures, Tables Published in Africa by University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg Published in Europe by Merlin Press, London Published in N.America by Africa World Press, Trenton *** 'A monumental work. The information is political dynamite, crucial for those of us who believe the way forward leads from exhausted nationalist politics to a post-capitalist society where environment is taken seriously'. --Soweto activist Trevor Ngwane 'Unsustainable South Africa is an eye-opener. It provides a vivid account of the tragedy of contemporary South Africa, which got rid of apartheid only to succumb to the forces of global neoliberalism. The ecological, social and economic consequences have been devastating and are presented here in raw detail. But Bond also offers us reason for hope.' --John Bellamy Foster, Coeditor, Monthly Review; author, Ecology Against Capitalism 'A poorly prepared polemic.' --Trade and industry minister Alec Erwin, on the book's analysis of Coega *** Patrick Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone (27)83-633-5548 fax (27)11-484-2729
Dollars and Sense article - Whose Jobs? Our Jobs!
Hi everyone, With the economy continuing its downward spiral and today's depressing jobless figures - here's a piece I wrote for the current issue of Dollars and Sense, hopefully balancing the bad with the good. Your comments would be most welcome. Best, Nomi Dollars Sense March-April 2003 Whose Jobs? Our Jobs! Here is the untold story of workers response to the telecommunications meltdown. Unions, ex-employees, and retirees are mobilizing for jobs and reform. BY NOMI PRINS At some point, you become numb to the stories of greedy execs who scammed billions of dollars from their shareholders and workers. The $95 million Bel Aire mansions. The $15,000 umbrella stands. The tax-deductible private jets. Even more maddening, many executives walked away from their fraud-infested firms with multi-million dollar exit perks. There were no such golden parachutes for the over half a million laid-off telecom workers. They lost out three times. First, the value of their stock-filled retirement plans plummeted. Then, their jobs were cut. Finally, many did not receive the severance pay and benefits to which they were legally entitled. But one important part of the telecom tale has yet to be told: the story of unions role in securing jobs and severance pay in the face of the sector-wide meltdown. Unionized workers have survived the crisis with fewer scrapes than their nonunion peers. Unionized companies have had fewer scandals, and have been less prone to cut costs by simply axing their workforce. Even employees laid-off from nonunion telecom companies have turned to the AFL-CIO for help, and for good reason. For full article: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2003/0303prins.html
job opening
Please circulate widely. Though the ad doesn't say so, ability to teach History of Economic Thought and to collaborate in interdisciplinary social science courses will be a big plus. Feel free to contact me with questions. Ellen Frank The Management and Economics Department invites applications for a full time faculty appointment in the field of Economics. The College offers a major in Management and a minor in Economics. Therefore, faculty in the department must demonstrate flexibility to serve both disciplines in some capacity, through teaching, advising or program assessment. The position requires ability to teach introductory macro and micro as well as selected upper level electives to management students. Experience in curriculum development for the undergraduate and graduate program is desirable. Ability to teach a course in introductory statistics and quantitative methods will be considered a plus. This position begins in the Fall 2003 semester. A Ph.D. is required. Interested candidates should send a current CV with names and addresses of three references (no letters, please), a list of college courses taught to date, as well as a brief letter stating teaching philosophy, and connection between research interest and courses taught to: Mail: Emmanuel College Human Resources 400 The Fenway Boston, MA 02115 fax: 617-735-9877 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from god to gdp
Money and happiness The evidence is clear: our wellbeing depends on cooperation and the public good, not personal enrichment Polly Toynbee Friday March 7, 2003 The Guardian When God died, GDP took over and economists became the new high priests. That has been the story of the last century, with prophets from Hayek to Keynes. The dismal science - economics - rules our lives and politics. So when one of the wizards of economics breaks ranks spectacularly and rips away the curtain of his own profession's mystique, it is time to take notice. Lord (Richard) Layard, the LSE's director of the centre for economic performance, has this week delivered three startling lectures which question the supremacy of economics. It doesn't work. Economies grow, GDP swells, but once above abject poverty, it makes no difference to citizens' well-being. What is all this extra money for if it is now proved beyond doubt not to deliver greater happiness, nationally or individually? Happiness has not risen in western nations in the last 50 years, despite massive increases in wealth. This sounds like the stuff of vicars, Greens and prophets of doom with sandwich boards in Oxford Street. Yes, we've considered the lilies of the field while getting on down to Dixons, humming money can't buy me love all the way to the bank. Retail therapy feels good. So most of serious politics, and thus our national life, revolves around cash, its getting and spending. Layard is not the first to say this: there is a growing new scientific movement studying happiness. Daniel Kahneman, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for economics - yes, economics - is best known for his work on hedonic psychology. Suddenly the big question is being asked by those who spent their lives on making and measuring money: what's it all for? For doubters, he offers a wealth of hard scientific evidence. Neuroscience has backed up social and psychological surveys: brain scans now prove that people's reported happiness levels are remarkably accurate, as easy to measure as decibels of noise. And people are no happier than they were. Money does matter in various ways. People earning under around £10,000 are measurably, permanently happier when paid more. It matters when people of any income feel a drop from what they have become used to. But above all, money makes people unhappy when they compare their own income with others'. Richer people are happier - but not because of the absolute size of their wealth, but because they have more than other people. But the wider the wealth gap, the worse it harms the rest. Rivalry in income makes those left behind more miserable that it confers extra happiness on the winners. In which case, he suggests, the winners deserve to be taxed more on the polluter pays principle: the rich are causing measurable unhappiness by getting out too far ahead of the rest, without doing themselves much good. In pursuit of money, working ever harder, we are, says Layard, on a hedonic treadmill - a phrase that resonates with most of us. Right across Europe people report more stress, harder work, greater fear of insecurity, chasing elusive gains. The seven key factors now scientifically established to affect happiness most are: mental health, satisfying and secure work, a secure and loving private life, a safe community, freedom and moral values. If politicians were to absorb this message - he delivered a version of this at the Smith Institute inside No 11 last week - the political implications are devastating. Virtually everything politicians can promise with any degree of certainty, depends on money - more growth, higher GDP, more things. Once they leave the terra firma of hard economics, they are in alarming territory. Politicians are not priests or moral guides: since they are now treated with (unjustified) contempt, they areunlikely to assume the mantle of the nation's happiness gurus. But imagine if they abandoned all other targets and adopted just the one - to increase the sum of national felicity. Budget day would no longer be the big event, it would instead be replaced with hedonic measurement day. Where would they find quick wins? Layard suggests a great many. As an employment economist, (chief architect of Labour's New Deal), at work he calls for gentler management, less downsizing and squeezing of labour, more security of tenure. Though he has recently called for Europeans to be tougher on pushing people into work, since unemployment is a prime source of despair, once in work he supports European-style employment protection, treating workers better. He decries calls for more labour mobility, which has destroyed secure communities and separated families, contributing greatly to unhappiness. As we get richer, we could afford less unpleasant working conditions. He is at his most caustic on mental health. Depression is largely curable with drugs and therapy, but only a quarter of people get treatment. Mental illness causes half of Britain's
re: from god to gdp; from lump of Layard to leisure
Whoa! Shiver me timbers. Quickly skimming through Richard Layard's second lecture of three I am getting the impression that he is inadvertently stumbling over insights that the turn of the last century Cambridge economists took as axiomatic. That is before the ban on comparing utilities came into effect. Layard is one of the economists I took to task a few years ago for his lump of labour triumphalism -- a giddy celebration of the trivial observation that there is not a fixed amount of work. Finally, he notices that growth does not heal all wounds. This is quite remarkable. Even more remarkable, to me, is point 3 in his summation, corrective taxation is needed if my work-life balance is to be efficient. This should be a key doctrine of the Third Way. The owl of Minerva takes flight! Or is there perhaps a swan of Minerva that might break out in song? http://cep.lse.ac.uk/ So what have I been saying? 1. If my income rises I am happier, especially in the short term. 2. But this makes others less happy and the effect on me fades in ways I did not foresee. 3. So corrective taxation is needed if my work-life balance is to be efficient. This should be a key doctrine in the Third Way. 4. We ought not to encourage income comparisons and the zero-sum struggle for rank. 5. External incentives can undermine our internal motivation to do good work. So PRP should be used only with care. 6. Advertising should be controlled, especially towards children. 7. We should redistribute income towards the poor. Tom Walker 604 255 4812
US loses world leadership
Perhaps the moment will be more correctly identified as next Tuesday, when the SC votes formally on the UK proposal giving a cutoff of 17th March. Perhaps it is just conceivable they can bully or cajole a majority in order to have it vetoed. But really the US under Bush has squandered its hegemony of the world. The smaller countries are signalling their disquiet by failing to come out strongly in support of the US lead, and murmuring that they expect the big powers to sort out their arguments. A BBC correspondent tonight said I am told they (US-UK) do not think they have got any of them (the undecided) Bush's bravado about demanding a vote so people can be counted is fatal in terms of leadership. Leadership includes winning the acceptance of the undecided, not driving them into a corner. Particularly when his administration's fundamental position is that they will go to war anyway. It leaves him a truculent and failed bully able only to be self-righteous. His position is further weakenedn by the terms of his alliance with Blair. Blair was always trying to tame the US after Sept 11. Now the main reason for petulantly persisting with a UN vote is to try to bail Blair out. It dramatises rather than discreetly conceals the contrast between power and legitimacy. True that the UK headlines tomorrow will conceal the impending isolation of the UK under the date of 17th March. True that the momentum of world will go on, and most countries are used to having to endure what the US wants, anyway. But the proposition is that Iraq must disarm in according to the South African model - that Saddam must turn himself into a Nelson Mandela within ten days. It is ridiculous as a model for international progress. Despite the fact that all the big powers have supported duress on Saddam, the Bush administration has allowed the French to turn the issue from one of containment of Saddam into one of containment of Bush. A new open anti-hegemonistic block has emerged, with cannot be bought off and intimidated one by one. The US is not so overwhelmingly rich as it is militarily powerful. The dollar is likely to fall as a store of value anyway, and there is likely to be a second one term Bush presidency. In a sense Al-Qaeda has won: 9-11 has driven Bush into rashly overreaching the imperialist power of the USA. The US can and will remain militarily pre-eminent. But there will be a persistent loss of good will towards the US in the coming world economic crisis. It has made numerous enemies, who will love to see it weakened. Chris Burford
evidence of war hawks' stupidity?
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030307-092710-3308r -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Turkey
EURASIA INSIGHT March 7, 2003 HISTORICAL FACTORS INFLUENCE TURKEY'S STANCE ON IRAQ WAR Igor Torbakov: 3/07/03 A EurasiaNet Commentary The Turkish parliament's reluctance to accept US troop deployment reflects widespread concern among the country's governing class about the merits of overhauling the region's geopolitical balance. Many are loath to abandon the cautious, if not isolationist, foreign policy principles established by the founders of the Turkish Republic. On the surface, the Grand National Assembly, Turkey's parliament, simply yielded to the overwhelming pacifist emotions of the public when it voted March 1 not to permit American deployment. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Roughly 90 per cent of Turks, according to polls, oppose Turkey's potential involvement in the war against Iraq. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the ruling Justice and Development Party, described the parliament's vote as a completely democratic result. Besides popular opposition to a war to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, however, the parliament vote was the product of a deeply rooted political instinct in Turkey. It is an understanding that, historically, Turkey's security interests are better served by maintaining regional stability than by altering the existing geopolitical order. A sizeable segment of Turkey's political class remains wary of the Bush administration's grandiose plans to revamp the Middle East. Many in Ankara are particularly concerned about the possible consequences for Turkey of a regional geopolitical restructuring. The March 1 parliament vote was, according to political analyst Burak Bekdil, mostly the product of Washington's failure to convince the Turkish military, which traditionally has an upper hand in deciding on security matters, that its war plans . did not contain a hidden agenda that might pose a security threat to Turkey. Among the sensitive issues that concern Turkish leaders, Bekdil pointed to possible demographic changes in the area of the oil-rich cities of Kirkuk and Mosul in northern Iraq, and to the possible formation of a loose federation in a post-Saddam Iraq that, in its turn, might eventually lead to the emergence of the independent Kurdish state. The razor-thin margin of the March 1 parliamentary vote testifies to the sharpness of the internal political debate on the Iraq issue. This debate has reminded some commentators of another, even more dramatic, parliamentary session when, by only a single vote, Turkey avoided being drawn into the Second World War. Of course, Turkish reluctance to enter the conflict was influenced heavily by the country's experience during the First World War, which cemented the break-up of the Ottoman Turkish empire and the tumultuous emergence of the modern Turkish Republic under Ataturk. Some observers have pointed to analogies between Turkey's current situation and that which existed prior to the outbreak of World War I. The most significant similarity is that Turkey is confronted now - as it was in 1914-1923 - with the geopolitical ambitions of powerful external players that are pursuing self-interested policies in the region. In addition, the current Turkish government is grappling with mounting economic hardships - a reminder of the economic decay that marked the waning days of rule by Ottoman Turkish sultans. US officials are now exerting pressure for a reconsideration of the March 1 parliament vote. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The evident irony of Washington's displeasure over the vote is not lost on many Turkish political observers. Taking heed of public attitudes and reflecting them in legislative decisions are democratic practices that the American (and European) democrats have been advising the Turks to follow, one Turkish observer noted sarcastically. Turkish opponents of the conservative defensive strategy argue, however, that the potential damage of the isolationist policy could be much higher than the risks of the possible war with Iraq in alliance with the United S tates. If Turkey maintains its anti-war stance, they contend, Ankara will find itself unable either to prevent the war, or to maintain the regional geopolitical balance once hostilities commence. The greatest nightmare would come to be true if the United States goes ahead without Turkey and wins the war against Iraq. In this case, it will have no responsibility to ask Turkey's opinion on how to restructure Iraq, says Ali Nihat Ozcan, an Ankara-based expert on the Middle East. The potential effect of Turkish parliament's vote on the country's European Union membership bid is also a matter of controversy. EU leaders France and Germany are outspoken opponents of military action against Iraq. As a result, Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Ertugrul Yalcinbayir asserted that the parliament's decision raised Turkey's standing in EU's eyes and may accelerate the nation's accession process. Not everyone in Turkey shares this
Buying a majority
From Times on Line March 8 cheers, k hanly 'Bribes' pushing UN waverers into support for war By Richard Beeston, Michael Dynes, Zahid Hussain and David Adams THE centre of gravity in the UN Security Council appeared to be moving significantly towards Britain and the United States last night after Hans Blix's report and the passionate debate that followed. Weeks of intense and often menacing diplomacy seemed to be paying off after statements before the Council, and private remarks from officials, suggested that the six waverers were likely to support the Anglo-American war resolution. Clumsy diplomacy, growing anti-war sentiment around the world and Iraq's improved co-operation with UN weapons inspectors had all combined to make Britain and America's job more difficult. However, diplomats and officials from the countries concerned said yesterday that Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan would be prepared to support a resolution in the right circumstances. Much depended on the impact of Dr Blix's report and the new, reworded British resolution, which sets a last- chance deadline of March 17. None of the six is expected to reveal its position before a vote is taken, but realpolitik may be the decisive factor. America, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria need the support of at least five more countries to pass the resolution. They are opposed by France, Russia, Germany, China and Syria. Although France, Russia and China are permanent Security Council members with veto powers, a majority vote would still be a powerful endorsement of Washington's case. Western diplomats are confident that all three African members of the Council will now vote in favour of the resolution rather than risk the loss of substantial trade, aid packages and security guarantees. One lever being used against Guinea and Cameroon is the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), which gives preferential access to US markets for African exporters. Agoa requires beneficiaries not to engage in activities that undermine US national security or foreign policy interests. Angola has not yet been deemed eligible for Agoa's trade benefits because of its record on human rights abuses and corruption, but inclusion in the scheme is being offered as a reward for its compliance on the Iraq issue. Angola receives millions of dollars a year in US assistance. Guinean troops are being trained in border defence operations against Liberia by US instructors, while Cameroon, which also takes part in the US military training programme, is heavily reliant on IMF and World Bank support. Officially, the three African countries have indicated their support for a peaceful resolution of the Iraq crisis. Pakistan's relationship with America is even more critical to its economy and security. President Musharraf and key members of his leadership are seen as some of the US's closest South Asia allies. The Foreign Ministers of Mexico and Chile openly criticised Iraq for non-co-operation yesterday. Polls suggest that 90 per cent of Mexicans favour giving the UN weapons inspectors more time to do their job, but economic reality may prevail. Mexico relies on the US market for 80 per cent of its exports.
UK nuclear evidence a fake
From the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910113,00.html Another embarrassing defeat for the postmodernist approach to world governance rather than some sort of due process. Chris Burford London
Re: UK nuclear evidence a fake
- Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:10 PM Subject: [PEN-L:35362] UK nuclear evidence a fake From the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910113,00.html Another embarrassing defeat for the postmodernist approach to world governance rather than some sort of due process. Chris Burford London == What's postmodern about Machievellian political strategies of strategic deception-opacity combined with a variation on good old fashioned catachresis? Ian
Re: evidence of war hawks' stupidity?
At 2003-03-07 18:23 -0800, you wrote: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030307-092710-3308r I note the passage: For the Iraqi Army and totalitarian civilian regime shows no sign of cracking and coming apart. Not even close. There has been so far a handful of defectors to the United States or to other countries, especially Jordan and Turkey. But they have been numbered in their dozens, not their hundreds and thousands as the Office of the Secretary of Defense civilian war hawks had confidently predicted and expected. This was the sort of reason I raised the question about Iraq's political economy. There is no doubt that Saddam has used terror as a means of state policy, but that is not so far back in the history of most states. I presume there will be evidence of continued ruthless suppress of political opponents. But what we need to check is how the regime has stabilised during a period of severe sanctions that were supposed to cause an uprising. All states have to make some gestures to win public acceptance and tolerance of the rulers sense of justice. To an extent these concessions to justice and collectivity are genuine, or provide forums that can be used. It is quite possible that by 2000 Iraq had become something closer to the last years of East Germany: a state with a network of informers restricting the open expression of opposition views but nevertheless with forums for collective discussion and bonding. Including discussion of the meaning of socialism. Certainly the censored news clips appear to be able to come up with thoughtful comments from Iraqis. The US occupation strategy is to use the Iraqi army to keep civil order. It will be interesting and important to see what sort of debate emerges after the departure of Saddam. None of this is an argument for that invasion: rather that modern single party states can develop a degree of civil society which could have encouraged the regime to take part in more sophisticated negotiations with the would be rulers of the world, had those rulers offered a more sophisticated lead than resign or be overthrown. The French and the Germans (with their tradition of Ostpolitik) know this well. The Hawks simply cannot follow the plot because they do not understand it, but most of the rest of the countries of the world do. It is almost as if the hawks have got some sort of embarrassing skills deficit. Unfortunately it will lead to thousands of people being killed, and tens of thousands if not 100's of thousands becoming refugees, before the United States and Congress realise the hawks have an embarrassing handicap. Chris Burford London
